Justice Yashwant Verma, a judge of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, recently came under scrutiny following allegations regarding the discovery of illicit cash at his residence after a fire incident. In response to the controversy, the Central Government exercised its powers under Article 222(1) of the Constitution, which empowers the President, after consultation with the Chief Justice of India (CJI), to transfer a High Court judge. Consequently, Justice Verma was transferred to the Allahabad High Court.

• Receiving Complaints: Complaints against a High Court judge may be received by the Chief Justice of the High Court (CJHC), the Chief Justice of India (CJI), or the President of India (who may forward them to the CJI).
• Preliminary Scrutiny: The CJHC or CJI examines the complaint to determine whether it is frivolous, related to judicial decisions (and thus non-actionable), or involves serious misconduct (e.g., corruption or harassment).
• Seeking the Judge's Response: If the complaint appears to be serious, the CJHC (or CJI) seeks a written response from the accused judge.
• Preliminary Determination: The CJHC reviews both the complaint and the judge's response. If the complaint is unsubstantiated, no further action is taken. However, if further investigation is warranted, the matter is forwarded to the CJI.
• Formation of a Three-Member Committee: If the CJI deems a deeper probe necessary, a three-member committee is appointed, consisting of two Chief Justices from other High Courts and one senior High Court judge.
• Fact-Finding Inquiry: The committee conducts a confidential inquiry wherein both the judge and the complainant may present evidence. While formal cross-examination does not occur, principles of natural justice are upheld.
• Final Recommendations: The committee submits its report to the CJI, recommending one of the following outcomes:
  • If the complaint is unsubstantiated, it is dismissed.
  • If the judge is found guilty of misconduct, disciplinary action may be taken.
  • The CJI may refer the findings to the government for initiating impeachment proceedings.

This in-house procedure was designed to address systemic gaps in handling complaints against judges while maintaining judicial independence, accountability, and institutional integrity. The structured process ensures impartiality by involving a three-member committee from different High Courts. It also upholds the principles of natural justice, protects complainants and witnesses from retaliation, and preserves the judiciary's dignity by minimizing public exposure.

By centralizing authority in the CJI and excluding colleagues of the accused judge, the framework mitigates institutional bias, ensuring fairness and adherence to ethical standards (Restatement of Values of Judicial Life). Ultimately, this process aims to uphold public trust by addressing complaints rigorously yet discreetly, shielding the judiciary from unverified allegations while ensuring accountability for judicial misconduct.

PIL Filed in the Supreme Court Seeking FIR Registration
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed before the Supreme Court seeking a direction to the Delhi Police to register a First Information Report (FIR) against Justice Yashwant Verma. However, the Supreme Court rejected the plea on the grounds that the request was premature, as the in-house proceedings were still ongoing. The Court clarified that upon completion of the inquiry, the CJI would have several options, including directing the police to register an FIR or referring the report findings to Parliament for impeachment proceedings.

The petitioner contended that the in-house committee is not a statutory body and cannot substitute for a formal criminal investigation by specialized agencies. However, this argument was not entertained by the Court at this stage.

Will Justice Yashwant Verma Be Impeached?
Under Articles 124(4) and 124(5) of the Constitution, a judge of the Supreme Court or High Court (see Article 217) can be removed from office by an order of the President following an address by Parliament. The removal motion must be supported by a special majority in each House of Parliament.

Historically, impeachment proceedings have been initiated against Supreme Court or High Court judges on five occasions. However, no judge has ever been successfully removed from office through impeachment. Justice V. Ramaswami of the Supreme Court faced impeachment proceedings in 1993, but the motion failed in the Lok Sabha. Justice Soumitra Sen of the Calcutta High Court resigned in 2011 before the Lok Sabha could vote on his removal, despite the Rajya Sabha passing the impeachment motion.

Whether Justice Yashwant Verma will be impeached depends on the findings of the three-member committee. If he is found guilty and the CJI forwards the report to the government, impeachment proceedings may be initiated in Parliament. Should this happen, he would become the 6th judge to face impeachment proceedings in Parliament and potentially the first to be successfully removed from office.
Given the complexities involved and the historically high threshold for judicial impeachment in India, the final outcome remains uncertain.

Written By: Lucky Singh, a 2nd year law student pursuing a B.A. L.L.B at Army institute of law, Mohali.